Has Hawking said something new?

While I am not familiar enough with Hawking’s work to be able to say how new any of it is for him, I can say, from the description he and co-author Leonard Mlodinow gave recently on Larry King, that there doesn’t seem to be anything all that new or groundbreaking.

The gist of what they said was that basically, the universe, originating from the Big Bang, came from nothing. I mean literally, that’s what Mlodinow said. Put like this, lets say this is the typical arguments theists like us would use:

1. The universe has a beginning (granted by both sides).
2. If there is no God, then the universe would have had to have been created from nothing.
3. You cannot have something created from nothing.
4. Therefore, there must be a God.

Most would try to address premise 2 (for example, I heard someone once propose that energy is uncreated and ever-existent, and that it must have caused the Big Bang). Instead, they argue against premise 3, literally arguing that something can come from nothing. As to how that argument is supported, we’d have to read the book.

Of course, I’m not sure of how closely linked the two ideas are, but they also add that creation would have been made possible by the already existent physical laws such as gravity. Hawking didn’t really answer Larry King when he asked him where the physical laws came from, which is kind of an important question, because either such laws are ever-existent, or something or someone put them into place, which brings us back to square one.

It seems to me that really the only thing new about it was the fact that this time around, Hawking actually just came out and said it.

Everyone need money now and then

But to get back to the book:

Rather laughable of Craig to suggest that Hawking has added nothing new since his book A Brief History of Time. The fact that Hawking is arguing for M-theory and its cosmological application must be new. This work didn’t arise until the mid to late 90s. A Brief History of Time was published in 1988! Search that book – I couldn’t find any reference to branes or M theory! Can you?

Of course Craig is really reacting to the elephant in the room (or in this blog post) – the one sentence in news reports:

“It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”

This seems to have offended the theologically inclined – and perhaps it was intended to. It was promoted this way by Hawking’s publicist and the London Times (who were serialising this book). It’s been referred to as “godmongering” – and like sheep theologians like Craig have cooperated in their reaction and helped push the book to the top of the best seller list. (Reminds me of “The God Delusion”).

But, of course, there is nothing new, or surprising, in such a statement. Consider the biologist George Romanes back in 1878 “there can no longer be any doubt that the existence of God is wholly unnecessary to explain any of the phenomena of the universe.”

Or let’s go back to Newton who said “natural philosophy” should not “be founded .. on metaphysical opinion” and that its conclusions can only “be proved by experiment.” In practice Newton was usually a strict materialist but did tend to fall into the trap of saying “god did it” when he was stumped. Of course, later on others were able to show him that he was wrong in these cases.

So all this hand wringing over The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow is really restricted to a few people who are offended by this rather obvious fact about science. However, I say “good on them.” They are certainly making sure the book will sell will – whether it deserves it or not.

Ropata, it is because relativity theory breaks down at short times during the big bang that a singularity (derived from extrapolation of relativity) is technically not correct and Hawking changed his mind on that. (I am certainly not responsible for the rumour Glenn is propagating).

 The current task is to somehow combine relativity and quantum theories. Hopefully such a theory of quantum gravity (not yet achieved) will help in our understanding of the big bang. A quantum theory of gravity may also help clarify what came before the big bang.

You are rather extravagant to claim Hawking’s work is untestable. It is certainly speculation which is, I think, necessary and worthwhile. It has yet to be tested – but to claim it is untestable is arrogant because you are claiming something you cannot know. You are in the same position as those philosophers who claimed we could never know the composition of the stars.

And talking about unreadable speculation . . .!

There is often speculation that Hawking may be awarded the noble prize for his work on black holes.

Ken, my understanding is that Stenger propagates the rumour in God: The Failed Hypothesis.

What’s more, Craig never, as far as I know, never claims that Vilenkin cites God as the cause of the universe. He cited him as a source who claims that the beginning of the universe is inevitable.

In other words, he perfectly represented Vilenkin and never ever misrepresented him. He is well aware that Vilenkin does not share his view on what explains the beginning of the Universe. But his is absolutely on the money in citing Vilenkin as someone who insists, against others, that the Universe had a beginning a finite time period ago.

No misrepresentation here. None.

Is still online – without any explanation I could see.

For the avoidance of doubt, Stenger, in God: The Failed Hypothesis, p. 122:

In 1970 cosmologist Stephen Hawking and mathematician Roger Penrose, using a theorem derived earlier by Penrose, “proved” that a singularity exists at the beginning of the big bang.
Extrapolating general relativity back to zero time, the universe gets smaller and smaller while the density of the universe and the gravitational field increases. As the size of the universe goes to zero, the density and gravitational field, at least according to the mathematics of general relativity, become infinite. At that point, Craig claims, time must stop and, therefore, no prior time can exist.
However, Hawking has repudiated his own earlier proof. In his best seller A Brief History of Time, he avers, “There was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe.” This revised conclusion, concurred with by Penrose, follows from quantum mechanics, the theory of atomic processes that was developed in the years following the introduction of Einstein’s theories of relativity. Quantum mechanics, which also is now confirmed to great precision, tells us that general relativity, at least as currently formulated, must break down at times less than the Planck time and at distances smaller than the Planck length, mentioned earlier. It follows that general relativity cannot be used to imply that a singularity occurred prior to the Planck time and that Craig’s use of the singularity theorem for a beginning of time is invalid.

[Bold emphasis is mine, italics is original.]

There it is, plain as day: Stenger refers to Hawking publishing a singularity theory, then goes on to say Craig uses it to say that’s where time begins, says Hawking revised his theory, then at the end of the quote says if follows Craig’s use of the singularity theorem is invalid because Hawking doesn’t hold the view.

Clearly Stenger says that Craig draws on Hawking’s theory even though Hawking has revised it. The implied question being asked of the reader by Stenger is “Can you really trust someone who uses a repudiated theory to prove the existence of God?”

Ropata,

Ken asked for evidence that Stenger misrepresented Craig, charging Glenn with rumour-mongering. Glenn gave him the reference, yet surprisingly, Ken still asked for evidence, so I put it up in full. The quote says what it says, there’s no extravagance involved. Ken is wrong to say there is no misrepesentation.

Ropata – I am not familiar with the debunking Craig blog – could you provide a link?

My sources are Stenger’s works and some of Craig’s. And, yes, I did check out Hawking’s book and D’Souza’s book with respect to D’Souza’s specific claim.

I didn’t count the times Craig used “singularity.” But it is clear that he wants to have the beginning of time, etc. that a singularity provides. Ad that is why he effectively still argues for it, named or not named. (The word “singularity is used rather loosely – even by people who understand the quantum effects. Even by Hawking himself).

I don’t get it. Stenger propagated the claim that Craig presumed to draw support from Hawking’s position, even though Hawking (according to Stenger, that is) had publicly retracted that view.

Craig therefore had to explain how this is not correct, and his explanation of how he did not in fact draw support from Hawking for a view that he no longer holds is clear and understandable – and accessible to us all.

Ken, if this is not, in your view, a case of Craig being accused of something he didn’t do, then you are not playing by rules that I recognise. Trying to drag third parties into the example just shows that on its own this is a case that looks bad for Stenger, and you’re being resistant to admitting it. I don’t see any good reason for you to approach the matter this way.

Ken,
As requested.. this blog has some quite plausible criticism of Craig. The author seems well-read on cosmology, I am not so sure about his grasp of philosophy

Glenn, the single sentence of the authors that theologians have concentrated on is non-controversial in science, as I pointed out. There is no necessity to use gods as explanations in any phenomena.

Now, as has also been pointed out the authors are not claiming there is no god. They are not criticizing you for your god beliefs. They are just pointing out they are just of no use to scientific explanations.

The theological defensive reactions arise from inability to read statements properly or a belief that scientists should be obliged to include gods in their theories. The later expectation is not even going to be considered. Their problems with reading are theirs, not ours.

So, Glenn, you clearly demonstrate the problem and the underlying cause of the science – religion conflict. You say:

“I suppose it is your perogative to somehow think that the claim that God did not create the universe is not a criticism of a god belief. I can only imagine how much mental effort that interpretation must take, however
 
I understand that to mean that scientific models for formation of the universe are, in effect, criticisms of god beliefs! So Le Maitre, who proposed one of the initial big bang models was criticizing god beliefs? Even though he was a Catholic priest? Effectively he was saying the same thing as Hawking when he reprimanded the pope for trying to claim the model as proof for his god. He pointed out that it was not. The same as Hawking has done.

Of course, as with Hawking and his coauthor, Le Maitre did not see his model as proof that there is no god.

Conflict is inevitable when we have religions attempting to impose myths onto science and then their practioners becoming offended when they are ignored. Humanity has too much to lose for us to sacrifice scientific truth at the stake of religious prejudice.

As for mental effort I can assure you none is involved. It would be arrogant of me to assume any default position – involving a god or not. Science should start with the evidence and hopefully also eventually end with the evidence. We should take the evidence as it comes without imposing our own prejudices. We should follow the evidence where it leads.

The sad (for theology) fact is that there is neither evidence or a developed, structured, hypothesis which even makes inclusion of a god belief possible in scientific models of universe formation. Simply asserting “god did it” is not science. If and when there is such evidence and hypothesis I certainly don’t see any problem in it’s inclusion. But you guys don’t get a free pass for this sort if thing.

Now I can appreciate you might find this difficult because you have an existing conviction. And I am sure there are a few scientists who might have similar problems because of their religious convictions. But certainly not me. And I suggest that even many Christian scientists are also capable of this via compartmentalization of their beliefs.

It is very noticeable that almost all the criticism of Hawking has been theological. Science writers may not review his book well but they all seem to see his simple sentence as a statement of the bleeding obvious. Check them out. See if you can find any who don’t (and yes I do know about Lady Greenfield’s silly criticism).

No I am not diverting away from Craig to D’Souza. But your little attempt to promote a rumor around Craig has been shown to have no substance. Similarly Matt attempted to lay this charge on me – he confused my specific criticism of D’Souza with my general comment on Craig. Of course he couldn’t continue that in my case because I could simply point out that had not been my intention. But I can see now why he got confused – the unsubstantiated claims made at the beginning of Craig’s video.

Now I would think that the facts around D’Souza’s misrepresentation are very clear. He had been caught lying. I am sure you can also see that. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge this, though, indicates your unwillingness to admit when an apologist mate of yours us wrong. So what hope is there for you to acknowledge your mistake regarding Craig. Much easier to just bad mouth Stenger.

And Ken, I repeat again: I have not read D’Souza, and he is not relevant to anything that I have, in fact, said. In this blog post I have provided some comments from William Lane Craig (not Dinesh D’Souza) on whether or not Stephen Hawking is really saying anything new when he denies that God created the Universe, and in the process I also provided a link to help dispell rumours that Craig misrepresented Hawking by knowingly citing him in support of a view he no longer holds.

D’Souzah is not relevant to any of this, any more than Richard Dawkins is relevant.

Great minds like Hawkings and Mlodinow are looking for answers to the origins of the universe. Their conclusions to this innately human ponder-able “where did life began?” are clearly at odds with the simple & finite view that “God did it.”

So if God did do it – then why don’t believers look for this conclusion using quantifiable science? Find who made god and what god is made of using the same methods open to the likes of Hawkins and anyone who has the necessary brain-power – instead of just saying “we don’t believe you” all the time?

Saying “God did it” is not an answer till we know what god is, what made god or gods?

All the churches around the globe could help fund their own version of a hadron collider and undertake experiments that conclude god exists. Clearly they have the funding to undertake such research – just not the will.

The avenue to disprove Hawkings & Mlodinows conclusions are open to anyone.

Rather than simply disagreeing – why not try and disprove them?

Better still prove your supreme-being was involved.

Glenn, you could go back to University and do a doctorate in Physics & Cosmology and challenge Hawkings and the like.

Fat chance of any of this happening.

It’s too easy to sit back and snipe at things and indulge in character assassination.

Have a great day.

Paul.

Paul wrote:

“So if God did do it – then why don’t believers look for this conclusion using quantifiable science? Find who made god and what god is made of using the same methods open to the likes of Hawkins and anyone who has the necessary brain-power – instead of just saying “we don’t believe you” all the time? Saying “God did it” is not an answer till we know what god is, what made god or gods?”

Paul, I have offered definitions of what God is (still waiting for the money btw) so saying we don’t know is disengenous. On of his properties is being eternal and uncreated so asking who made him is about as sensible as asking when you stopped beating your wife? or what made you 2 feet tall?

As to your question as to why we don’t use science to detect Gods existence here is my question for you. why do you assume that if God exists the way to detect him would be via science? Do you have any non circular evidence that science is the only valid way of detecting things? if so please provide it, or is this something you believe on faith.

Yes, Matt – I have raised with you before your tendency to wildly accuse people of lying. It is a way of avoiding the truth isn’t it?

Might I suggest that you are not being truthful here yourself. You ignore my comment:

“You have taken a very vague inclusive comment of mine on your blog to attribute a specific charge on my part. I certainly didn’t mean it that way – as surely this post demonstrates as it discusses the specifics. However, I think with respect to Craig, who as far as I know doesn’t specifically use the Hawking’s quote, my comment is that he uses the science opportunistically. In my comment i was not being specific. I certainly withdraw that if you insist on interpreting it in that way which I didn’t intend.”

Now you accepted that at the time. Here you conveniently forget it.

How about withdrawing your charge and apologising?

1: I have never accused Craig of misrepresenting that specific quote from Hawking’s book A Brief History of Time. Nor has Stenger. That specific charge was aimed at D’Souza.

I notice you, like Glenn and your other mates, still refuse to acknowledge that D’Souza completely misrepresented that paragraph from Hawking’s book by his selective quote. You would appear more rational if you could bring yourself to acknowledge D’Souza lied and criticise him for it.

Or do you wish to divert away from that simple issue?

2: The fact is Matt, Glenn has accused Stenger of something: ” a dirty wee rumour going around thanks to Victor Stenger that Dr Craig had earlier misrepresented what Hawking had said in his earlier book A Brief History of Time. “

2: Neither Glenn or Jason (or you) have presented any evidence for this claim. Have a look at Jason’s quote – it does not say what Glenn charges (and we know Glenn has never bothered checking this out).

3: The introduction to Craig’s video,however, does imply that Stenger accused him of misrepresenting Hawking. It is very noticeable he doesn’t quote anything to support that. So yes, I think Craig is misrepresenting Stenger here – playing the man rather than the ball.

4: It is pathetic that so much energy is being put into attacking Stenger in this nasty way. The lack of evidence doesn’t bother you – you just substitute typical theological fluffiness to confuse the facts. This obviously comes naturally to you.

5: Quite separate from Hawking’s book many have argued against Craig’s reliance on a “singularity” to find a place for his god. This is not a matter of misrepresentation – it is a matter of selectively using something from science while ignoring other aspect. This was pointed out to Craig by Stenger some years ago. Stenger’s criticism is that Craig’s article using that specific argument is still on his site – no correction or amendment.

Now Craig is welcome to stick with the old interpretation. He is welcome to argue against incorporation of quantum effects. He is welcome to specifically criticise the Hawking/Hartle model. After al scientists are quite used to these sort of debates.

However, Craig is playing dirty if he accuses scientists willingness to argue against him as somehow them accusing him of “misrepresentation.”

6. I suspect few scientists will actually really consider Craig’s argument or take him seriously. After all he persist in using theological venues for a one sided criticism of the science. However, to the extent he is prepared to publish his discussion in the appropriate scientific journals, he will of course be taken seriously. And, of course, if he does so this would give some credibility to his arguments.

Frankly I can’t be bothered following his one sided debate when it it only presented in an apologist document. Better things to do with my time.

Finally, Matt, why jump into this discussion now with wild personal attacks? Yet when the substance of a discussion is presented your run away and hide. I specifically gave an example of Craig’s selective quoting of Vilenkin in our previous discussion. This is a common problem with quote mining.

And you disappear!

Matt – you are both avoiding (re D’Souza – I guess he doesn’t rank as high as Craig) and purposely trying to confuse.

Craig does cherry pick – a common approach by theologians trying to use science. You do it yourself and you continue to avoid the example I gave for Craig’s cherry picking of Vilenkin. That is my charge of Craig’s misrepresentation – nothing to do with A Brief History of Time.

And yes I did refer to Craig pulling up Craig for using the singularity argument (which goes back to Hawking and Penrose in 1970) having been corrected for this mistake in their debate. And yet Craig’s article that Stenger specifically refers to is still on Craig’s site, still unamended and still not corrected. That was the specific charge made by Stenger. Craig’s article doesn’t even refer to A Brief History of Time – or indeed refer to Hawking.

I repeat – Glenn is promoting an unfounded rumour (one that Craig launched at the intro to his video). Glenn refuses to check it out but wishes to confuse the issue – as do you.

For you, Glenn and Craig to interpret normal scientific refutation as accusation of misrepresentation really shows the poverty of, and lack of human respect in, the theological argument, doesn’t it?

Ken, so now we have evidence of you perpetuating the rumour about Craig, and citing Stenger as a source. Now you’re saying that Stenger never promoted the rumour at all.

This on top of the fact that you’ve had nothing to say about Craig’s substantive points in this clip.

There’s little more I need to see.

I see that pattern very clearly right here in this very thread.

In a thread on Craig’s comments directly about Hawking’s work, Ken has been trying and trying to get people talking about D’Souza (!!!). When it is pointed out that D’Souza is not relevant and Craig is the one being accused, he denies that Craig is so accused.

When Ken is reminded of the fact that he himself has made this very accusation about Craig, he makes a parting shot about D’Souza, pretends that Bill Craig hasn’t published in peer reviewed literature on cosmology (when anyone who has checked will know that he has) and tells us that we’re just jelly wrestling (and these two claims together amount to the admition: “I am ignorant of what Craig has said, and I don’t care to know about it so I’ll just call this something silly and walk away”), shifts the goalposts (by claiming that someone is talking about Craig misrepresenting A Brief History of Time even though that was never suggested), and then announcing that it’s pointless to debate the matter.

With tactics like this, it truly is pointless.

Moving on to Craig’s reliability in this area of science (he is after all ripping in to Stephen Hawking who has a very high standing in this area).

I said:

“This is the sort of debate Craig could present in a scientific journal if he had confidence in his own analysis. This would give it some credibility and also enable proper scientific consideration. He does not get this by sticking with apologetics venues or aiming at an apologetics audience. “

To which Matt replies:

“Craig has defended his views in the peer reviewed literature. He does all the time, in fact I provided you with an article where he criticises Hawkings in a scientific journal. I also pointed you to a source ( again peer reviewed)where he addressed QM.”

Well, I notice that Matt has dropped the word scientific. No one is suggesting Craig has not published. He is after all a philosopher and surely has published some papers in peer reviewed philosophy journals.

Now to the extent he has published credible papers in scientific I am willing to accord him some respect in the area.

But tell me if I am wrong, Matt. A brief search indicates to me he actually hasn’t done so.

Sure you will raise the paper in Astrophysics and Space Science 1999. I will get back to that.

I have had a brief check of Craig’s papers in journals that could be considered scientific using Google Scholar using the Physics, Astronomy, and Planetary Science classification.

A total of 18. Surprisingly few, but it is not his field.

Most of these journals/books were philosophical or evangelical religious.

There is only one paper in a scientific journal – the Astrophysics and Planetary Science paper you place so much weight on. The Ultimate Question of Origins: God and the Beginning of the Universe.

Now – you claim this was peer reviewed. I suggest to you it was not because it wasn’t a normal contributed paper.

This paper is the text of a lecture Craig presented at a conference in South Africa. It was an invited lecture. A public evening lecture. In my experience such lectures are not peer reviewed by the journal – that would be considered insulting to an invited lecturer. At the same time, of course, such lectures are considered interesting and stimulating but not necessarily accurate.

And the editors of the journal clearly state that the paper was not a scientific one. They say it came after presentation of the scientific contributions – it is not a scientific contribution, but a philosophical one.

Quite consistent with Craig’s reputation – as a philosopher not a scientist.

So thank you Matt. I had considered that Craig might have had some background in the science of cosmology – rather like Hugh Ross has a background in astronomy. So I was willing to accept he may have published a couple of peer reviewed scientific papers as Ross has.

However, your comments encouraged me to check and we find:

Yes Craig has standing as a philosophy

No, Craig doesn’t have standing as a scientific cosmologist. No peer reviewed publications in this area.

Yet – you are so blinded by apologetic authority you will believe him over Stenger and Hawking any time!

Well – a good example of the apologetics ghetto

Matt, my search was brief and I will readily concede that I may have missed some publications. If you think I have please refer me to them.

Now would you like to consider Hugh Ross and his porkies on the cosmological constant and fine tuning?

Ken I have not read Ross so wont comment. Perhaps you will finally address the really shonky work of Dawkins on the cosmological argument or his analysis of Aquinas or his incompetent discussion of the ontological argument or his next to no understanding of contemporary arguments from religious experience, or his unargued for claim that God is complex ignoring all the arguments to the contrary??? Or are you going to continue to promote his non peer reviewed discussions of these topics as substantive?

Makes impatient repeated taping sound on the table with fingers, awaiting…..

1.)Matts answer to “What is God?” he’s claimed to have sent me and is so enlightening as to be worthy of the promised $1,000 I put-up.

2.)Anyone at all here who can disprove the conclusions of Hawkings and Mlodinow using the same methodology they used to formulate it and not just a primeval approach to such a complex study like “I don’t believe them because I believe in god”

Imagine for a second if Hawkings and Mlodinow had have formed a different conclusion from their research and actually supported the supernatural basis for life. Then you guys would be trumpeting their conclusions.

But you don’t have to have a doctorate in physics to realise the belief your god a.k.a Allah being behind the origins of life in the universe – will never be an answer on its own – because it fails to also answer “who made god?”

Hawkins and Mlodinow’s theories tick both boxes and can be supported with evidence.

Evidence no-one here has challenged, nor does anyone here, myself included,have the brain-power to tackle Hawkings etc.

A doctorate in Theology is as much use as one in Zombies when it comes to a discussion of this nature, a nice segway into:

http://canterburyatheists.blogspot.com/2010/09/surely-doctorate-in-zombies-is-worth.html

I will repeat (for what it is worth) Atheists do look for answers to existence itself. They just don’t make them-up.

Have a great weekend.

Paul.

Matt – you say “Craig is a specialist in the cosmological argument”

What you mean is Craig is a specialist in the theological cosmological argument.

This is of course useless when you actually get down to it and study reality. My point about science needing to break away from theology for the scientific revolution to occur.

In the end science trumps theology. Because it works with reality.

Matt, send me the answer rather than giving it to your your mates and please don’t ask me to scratch around your joint after it.

Ta.

Paul.

Got it, Ken. So the physical sciences are the only way to know about reality. Clear as day.

Matt, you haven’t read the book. Can’t have even read the press reports!
Hawkings and his coauthor do not discuss theological theory. The discuss modern physics and cosmology. The reports say he favors M theory – nothing at all to do with theology.

Theologians should keep their noses out. Their behavior is simply an attempt to go back to the past before the scientific revolution.

Bloody losers. Humanity has too much to losoe to allow them to get away with that.

Ken, when Hawkings says that God is not needed to explain X and he has an argument that the Universe can be explained entirely naturalistically” Or when he argues that cosmology has the implication that God did not create it then he has addressed “theological theory” as you call it, and he then has to contend that experts in the area he has chosen to address will respond.

If scientists don’t like it don’t butt into philosophy.

Matt, my little “sermon” could be shot down in flames by you simply by providing one bit if scientific knowledge about our reality which relied on a god hypothesis or theory. One.

And you can’t find any.

On the contrary every day you use and rely on such godless knowledge. You are living proof of my assertions. And no amount of theological mumbo jumbo can change that fact.

And yet you want to impose on science a default requirement that your god beliefs be incorporated into our scientific theories. You can’t claim that for theories of universe origins without claiming it in general. And you can do nothing sensible to justify it.

As I said, humanity escaped from that (or started to) 400 years ago.

Bugger – that search in 4 was for the “cosmological argument.”

The “cosmological constant” is a whole other story of deception by theologians.

Ken
Hawking makes philosophical (theological) statements using theoretical physics (poorly). He has rightly earned opprobrium from working physicists and philosophers who may not be publicity junkies but they actually know the stuff. No reason for you to get angry and defensive when Hawking is criticised — unless you are trying to distract from the fact that his latest book just a stunt, not serious science

Matt – you were the one raising peer review and claiming it for Craig in scientific journals. For a specific paper. You were shown to be completely wrong.

You obviously have a real mental block about this.

All I can do is repeat that it is perfectly valid for Hawking, Newton and scientists in between to state that we do not require a god to explain anything in the universe – from its existence, what went before or its end. Simple statement of fact. You might be unhappy about that – tough.

It says nothing about your right to your beliefs or even if gods exist objectively. Nothing at all.

However, for you to claim your right to impose a theological requirement on science is to return to the situation 400 years ago, to the persecution of Galileo, the murder of Bruno, the inquisition.

Humanity does not want that again. And you guys no longer have the power to impose it again.

Our science will get on quite happily without you.

Bruno was murdered by the inquisition on a charge of heresy. Galileo was imprisoned (amended to house arrest) on a similar charge of heresy. Their heresy was not accepting the imposed dogma of the church regarding reality. You are now in the same position of attempting to impose a religious dogma onto scientists like Hawking. Effectively you accuse them of heresy.

However, we live in different times and Hawking is not going to be reigned in, let alone imprisoned, by you.

If Craig wishes to challenge Hawking’s ideas he has the option of publishing in the appropriate journal. That is a scientific journal – the ideas are scientific. We have seen that he does not do that.

Your claim that Newton “appealed to God to explain some phenomena” is true – but why stop there. Tell us why and how (un)successful those appeals were.

We know that in his scientific work Newton was basically materialist. He wrote that “natural philosophy should not be founded on metaphysical opinion” and that its conclusions “can only be proved by experiment.”

Newton is remembered basically for this – an important element of the scientific revolution – the escape of science from dogma and religion. He is not remembered for his bible analysis or alchemy.

Now in his scientific work he did appeal to his god (not very often) as a last resort – when he was stumped. (Today scientists are quite happy to say “I don’t know” when stumped – and then continue their research).

So examples. The aberrations in the orbits of Saturn and Jupiter. The planar arrangement of the planets. These he “explained” by attributing to the action of his god. Of course later scientists actually found the reasons for these things that stumped Newton.

And that is where gods have been used in the past – to “explain” things that baffled us – from lightning, thunder, etc., all the way up to the origin of life, evolution and the origin of the universe.

The god hypotheses never explained anything. It is more honest to say “I don’t know” and then set about researching the problem.

Matt – it is arrogant of you to accuse Hawking and others of writing “pop philosophy tracts.” An emotive statement perhaps but also an ignorant one demonstrating an attitudinal problem. I suspect you see all science books the same way.

You have not read the book in question. I don’t know if you could understand it if you did. But it would show less hubris if you restrained from such wild statements when you actually are ignorant of the book and its contents.

As we all are until we read it.

Ken
1. There is no evidence that Bruno was executed for his scientific beliefs, After examining Bruno’s considerable amount of writings Cardinal Bellarmine of the Inquisition drew up a list of 8 propositions that Bruno held which were considered heretical. The records were looted during the Napoleonic wars and a great deal was lost This list has not survived, so we do not know exactly what ideas of Bruno were condemned. Some people have speculated that Bruno’s cosmological views were on the list, but this is unlikely for two reasons. First, the Church did not consider Copernican cosmology heretical until 1616 sometime after Bruno’s trial. Second, the reference to a infinite universe was simply an echo of Nicholas of Cusa’s writings which the Church did not deem heretical.

2. We have gone over the Galileo issue before, this is perhaps the only case in where the Church prosecuted someone for their scientific opinions and hence you cannot claim a trend or pattern on the basis of it. Moreover the issue was far more complex than you make out, the Church had stated Galileo could teach heliocentricism ( which Theologians had been proposing as a hypothesis for several centuries) as a hypothesis but could not affirm it was demonstrably true until he came up with a demonstration, Galileo did not do so, latter scientists like Kepler did. The conflict thesis: which asserts that the Church oppressed science and scientists and hindered scientific progress is been pretty much abandoned by contemporary historians of science. You write ”If Craig wishes to challenge Hawking’s ideas he has the option of publishing in the appropriate journal. That is a scientific journal – the ideas are scientific. We have seen that he does not do that.”

Your reference to Craig and Hawkings. I can just as easily reply by saying, “If Hawking wishes to challenge Craig, or Swinburne, or Reichenbach or any other philosophers ideas that the existence of the universe or laws of nature are best explained by God then he had the option of publishing in an appropriate journal, that is a philosophical journal” Once again you seem to think that Philosophers should not be taken seriously when they make scientific claims if they have not been published by peer reviewed science journals yet in the same breath peddle philosophical and theological claims made by scientists which would not survive review in philosophical journals. In otherwords peer review is just a useful political tool that is wheeled out to silence your critics and then safely hidden away when you want to offer criticisms of your own.

3. Your correct that Newton’s appeal to God in some areas was unsuccessful, in others such as his theological conviction that the universe was governed by laws of nature, and which could be empirically detected because God was under no necessity to create the world any particular way as opposed to be detected by aprori reasoning, he was highly successful, and he was following earlier theological critiques of Aristotelian science. Your characterization of Newton as a materialist is false.
4. You write Now in his scientific work he did appeal to his god (not very often) as a last resort – when he was stumped. Actually no, his science flowed from prior theological convictions.

5.You write “(Today scientists are quite happy to say “I don’t know” when stumped – and then continue their research).The god hypotheses never explained anything. It is more honest to say “I don’t know” and then set about researching the problem.” two things here, first this statement is only true if you can show that theism does not explain anything, that would involve actually looking at the numerous arguments in the literature arguing God does explain certain phenomena and showing they fail, something you and other scientists like Dawkins refuse to do. Ironic that you make generalizations without evidence isn’t it. Second, your comments actually show that you rule any theistic explanations out aprori, you state that when one cannot explain something naturalistically then the best response is you don’t know, that only follows if you know naturalism is true, so where are the arguments for the truth of this metaphysical position? Again the philosophical questions are simply ignored or assumed.

6. ”Matt – it is arrogant of you to accuse Hawking and others of writing “pop philosophy tracts.” An emotive statement perhaps but also an ignorant one demonstrating an attitudinal problem. I suspect you see all science books the same way.” No I see science books that address philosophical questions poorly this way. By parity of logic I can accuse you of arrogance every time you reject a philosopher’s work on a scientific question because it’s published in a popular forum and not in peer reviewed scientific journals. Once again peer review is only used when it suits you.
7 You have not read the book in question. I don’t know if you could understand it if you did. But it would show less hubris if you restrained from such wild statements when you actually are ignorant of the book and its contents. By parity of argument I could tell you that if you read the numerous philosophical arguments around the cosmological argument you would probably not understand them and you yourself would also not make the kind of wild statements you frequently do such as it’s a fact that God does not explain the existence of the universe when its actually a highly technical and disputed question. Its only because you apply scholarly standards inconsistently that you continue to do so.

“Have a talk to your mate Glenn who will assure you that Galileo was in fact wrong and enlists Einstein to “prove” this. Another example of theological disregard for truth.”

It’s hilarious that you should refer to this. You are alluding to the thread in which I lost count of the times you clearly misrepresented me. You literally came in with one claim after another after another about beliefs that I allegedly hold or things that I allegedly said which were just clear falsehoods – and now you want to look back on that thread as “theological disregard for truth?”

It would be funny if it weren’t actually tragic.

Um, Ken, I documented so many times it was getting monotonous. Even after you were corrected, you kept on saying that I advocated geocentrism, and you kept on saying that I was calling Einstein a denier of heliocentrism. Goodness, it was repetitive. Even after you were corrected you just kept saying these things. And now you’re refering to that discussion as an example of theological disregard for the truth. And to put the icing on the cake, when I notice and remind you, you just call me childish? You really have an issue with even a single possible admission that you might be in error. The facts are damned, whatever genuinely took place doesn’t matter. Ken is right and that is that.

This is your old trick. Make countless clearly documented false claims, then wait months for the smoke to clear, then refer back to the old thread and describe it as being the opposite of what it was. Grow up, Ken.

Fortunately, you said it on my blog so the evidence is readily available: A reminder, for those who were not here to witness your repetitive dishonesty: PART 1 – PART 2

Ken, because I made the modest assumption that people who come here are capable of reading.

I linked to those threads because of the striking irony of you referring back to those discussions while in the same breath implying that it was I who had little regard for the truth, when throughout the threads you wantonly engaged in multiple fibs about me.

So you regard me defending Galileo’s recognized scientific standing agaist your accusation that Galileo was wrong as a “fib”? And we are talking about your post entitled “Galileo: yes folks he was wrong”??

Well, that’s a typical example of theogical “logic” isn’t it?

Ken,

I agree Galileo and Bruno were prosecuted for heresy, I agree also that the way they were treated was unjustified, but that was not what your original claim was, you originally suggested the church used to supress science and that idea know in as the conflict thesis has been discredited. As to your assertion I am ignorant, actually the discovery of the phases of venus suggested that Venus orbited the son, proponents of Geocentricism such as Tycho Brane could accommodate that without claiming the “earth moved” . The proof Galileo offered was his argument from tides, he argued roughly that tides were not caused by the moon but my the movement of the earth. This is false and has been totally discredited, hence, as much as you may not like it the Inquistion was actually correct to say that Galileo’s proof failed it did. But my intial point remains this is a single incident, it cannot be used to as an example of an overall trend of suppression of science.

As to your other claims, you seem to think that a philosopher who specialises in the theological and philosophical implications of cosmology criticisng Hawking’s attempt to draw such implications is some how analogous to burning people alive at the stake or sending them to a gulag, nothing like this has been suggested at all.

As to my comments by Newton here you simply repeat your claims and dismiss all else with name calling “jelly wrestling” or making pejorative claims about theology. In fact in the General Scholium an appendix to the second addition of Newton’s principia. Newton argued from the existence of the world and laws of nature to the existence of God. In the preface to the second penned to the principia by Roger Cotes, Cotes notes argues to the existence of laws of nature known empirically from theological premises. Once again ignoring historical facts with name calling does not really help you here.

Finally, you again repeat the claim which I have refuted ad nauesm that unless Craig’s work is published in a science journal its irrelevant to science, in response I will simply offer a paralell line of reasoning, unless Hawking’s criticisms of the cosmological argument for Gods existence, and his arguments that God did not create the universe are published in a mainstream philosophy journal they are irrelevant to theists. Once again you oppose philosophers making comments about science without peer review but then support scientists making philosophical claims without such review. In otherwords peer review only applies when it suits.

“You weren’t advocating a geocentric solution”

Yet in the other thread you said I was. We agree, then, that you misrepresented me.

I also claimed very clearly that the church was wrong, so the fact that you now associate me with a conference that contains the phrase “the church was right” is further misrepresentation of me by you.

You were shown that Hoyle fully supported my claim, and now you’re just desparately asserting with absolutely no evidence that I misrepresented Hoyle.

You’re a swirling mass of misrepresentation and false claims. You also tried to appeal to an old thread as a case of my disregard for truth, when in fact it was clearly and repeatedly shown that you were lying about me.

And now you ask me how I sleep straight at night. You’re good for a laugh, Ken, I’ll give you that!

Glenn, I did nothing of the sort on the other thread. This is a common tactic of yours to misrepresent others with such unsupported claims – I guess you see it as a way of confusing the discussion.

Hoyle did not support your claim at all and that was pointed out to you. You really need to understand that special relativity does not apply to accelerating objects. You got yourself into an impossible position of claiming that one cannot differentiate between heliocentricity and geocentricity. It is silly to think you could find any credible astronomer from recent times who could support you on this. Come off it – we have got a lot of experience with the exploration of our solar system now.

I think your tactics of accusing others of lying while you misrepresent them is childish. I can appreciate you are out of your depth when discussing subjects like this. However, if you appreciated that instead of persisting in lost arguments you wouldn’t end up painting yourself in a corner like this.

It has become a habit,.

Perhaps there is a simple solution to this, Glenn. After all it is childish to litigate old discussions along a you said, I said list of claims..

Just make a simple statement of your views on Galileo, his contribution to science and our concepts on the solar system and the scientific recognition that he produced evidence confirming a geocentric solar system.

Ken, I did not say that Tycho observed venus through a telescope. I pointed out that this observation by Galileo did not prove the “earth” moved and I noted that some geocentric astronomers of the time could account for these facts about Venus. So the point is this evidence, by itself, in Galileo’s context did not provide proof that the earth moved. Galileo’s attempt to prove the earth did move was his argument from the tides and here you admit, Galileo was mistaken

You go on to say Science had to break free from theological thinking to progress. I pointed out this is historically false, I argued for it in the previous comments. You have provided no evidence for this except the example of Bruno which I refuted above, the claim that Newton was a materialist, which I refuted above and Galileo, which we now see was actually a case of a scientist putting forward a hypothesis as established and true without adequate evidence, sure evidence did come in latter, but that does not mean Galileo presented it at the time. Moreover as I pointed out one case does not show a historical trend.

So once again Ken what we see you asserting without evidence claims about theology and science, and when these are shown wrong repeating them and complaining theologians hold views without evidence.

Contradicting your self is not terribly compelling.

As to your comment about science, yes we would use science to determine the effects of fossil fuel on the environment. However we would not rely on them to give us legal advice on tax laws, this is not the province of science but law. In some contexts however law and science overlap and the issue is not so simple, the insanity defence would be an example, to determine whether someone is legally insane one would need not just a Psychological assessment of the accused but also an understanding of what the legal definition of insanity is, and also how this definition has been interpreted by the courts, and how the data from Psychology is interpreted and weighed by the courts.

The question of whether contemporary cosmology shows God did not create the universe is analogous to this second case its an attempt to draw theological and philosophical conclusions from science.

The situation with Craig and Hawking is more like this: A world class Psychologist who had no understanding or knowledge of the law around insanity defences or any of the legal tests used to determine insanity or how they worked, decided to make claims about whether a particular court case got a ruling correct. A legal scholar who was an expert in the law around insanity who had written and published some of the most important works on how the law interpreted Psychological data said the Psychologist had got it wrong.

Its evident to me that a response along the lines of “the legal scholar is not a Psychologist so he can’t comment on whether the law of insanity was applied correctly” would be clearly wrong. Similarly the reply that, because Craig is not a cosmologist he can’t comment on whether cosmology shows God did not create the universe, is equally mistaken.

Heliocentrism, may be defined as “the astronomical model in which the Earth and planets revolve around a stationary Sun at the center of the universe”.
But, the Sun is not the center of the Universe.
Thus, Heliocentrism was wrong.

Galileo advocated Heliocentrism.
Ergo, Galileo was wrong.

QED

This does not deny that
– heliocentrism was an improvement on geocentrism
– the Earth orbits the Sun

Glenn, you certainly have some patience!

Ken, you’re a lying, sleazy, gutless chicken shit waste of space.

Ropata we have been talking about heliocentricism of the solar system. It’s amazing what silly arguments people will use to deny Galileo’s contribution to science and excuse the inquisition.

Glenn, you expose yourself by refusing any facts or precision and resorting up abuse.

That is childish. But also an admission of shame regarding your attempt to present Galileo as wrong.